Terror "Threats" Timed to Thwart Kerry in '04

07/02/2008 05:12 am ET | Updated May 25, 2011

The recent claims by McCain's Charlie Black about a terrorist attack helping McCain were not spontaneous. The Republicans have done that before, and, remember, Karl Rove is now a free agent who "chats" to the McCain campaign.

Moreover, they are not novel. Beginning with the immediate aftermath of the Democratic Convention in 2004, and continuing through the fall campaign, the Bush Administration formally announced a rise in the terror threat every time polls showed the Kerry/Edwards campaign achieving some positive momentum.

Just like, as Bush Chief of Staff Andrew Card said in September of 2002, you don't "sell a war in August", there apparently was no "need" of multiple terrorist alerts prior to the Democratic Convention in 2004.

The first, coming within days of the Democratic Convention, blunted Kerry's post-convention bounce. Remember, at that time, Katrina had not yet happened, the Iraq War was only 18 months old, and the media were unwilling even to question that Bush was asleep-at-the-wheel on 9/11. Thus, terror alerts not only diverted attention, but had the predictable effect on peoples' psyches to lean toward the known compared to the unknown.

Moreover, the media were talking about Kerry's blunted bounce without reference to the "terror threat," lending credence to the suggestion that Kerry was ineffective as all candidates always receive post-convention bounces. It was virtually impossible for the Kerry camp to "call-out" these terror threats as shams because Bush had the weight of the federal government behind him, and, to have done so, would have been to put Kerry in the position of not heeding warnings -- exactly what Bush had done prior to 9/11.

Subsequent examination of the "evidence" behind the threats showed them to be flimsy and mostly out-of-date. That, together with the pattern of their coming as Kerry/Edwards were showing some momentum in the polls, provides a very strong case for their being totally a concoction brewed for political gain. The absence of such announcements subsequently, with the regularity experienced in the fall of '04, nails the case shut.

And, of course, the Bush campaign had no one who would think of, much less do, this sort of political chicanery, right? No one who would lead the country into war so that they could enact their domestic agenda, and stifle democracy in our own country.

Certainly, the Kerry campaign made many mistakes -- from an ineffective campaign manager to the Shrum "consultancy" group, and from windsurfing to verbal gaffes -- but, consider objectively how close Kerry came: 30,000 votes in Ohio that themselves were likely a result of election-fraud in the form of inadequate voting machine numbers in key districts that resulted in hours-long lines and a Secretary of State who was Chair of the Bush Campaign in Ohio. This, despite $30 million of SwiftBoat ads, and Kerry's delayed response to that diatribe.

Using bogus fear of death, those terror alerts kept Bush in office and tragically cost a few thousand real US deaths and 15,000 maimed irrevocably for life, not to mention another 4 years of inaction on global warming and energy independence, and absence of a health care system that worked for all.

Bin Laden himself helped Bush. Recognizing an end to the Iraq War would send the might of the United States against him, and recognizing he duped Bush into believing Iraq was where the fight was, bin Laden must have wanted Bush to win, as he must McCain. So, he obliged by releasing a tape just before the election. And, it worked: he is still at-large, the Taliban is gaining strength, and the US is being bled in Iraq.

And, Rove is out there again, lurking, just "chatting" with the McCain campaign. His credibility has eroded, and the media is on to it, so Obama can call it out for what it is, when they try it again.

Calling it out in advance, as this article attempts to do, reduces its psychological impact when they do try it. But, constant vigilance, and repeatedly calling it out in advance, is required.

True, the evidence is circumstantial. But, do not let TV-legal dramas mislead anyone into believing that circumstantial evidence is insufficient to convict....

even of murder.